Have you ever seen this?

Every year, you and your team set goals, break them down quarterly and monthly, push forward, and measure results. Two consecutive years of missing targets. Your conclusion: the target was too high — let's lower it.

When you take action again and miss again, you lower it further. After several rounds, the target isn't much different from the original.

You tell yourself: "I'm not adjusting the target — I'm being realistic."

But deep down, you know something's wrong.

✧ A Real-Life Scenario That Stings

During a workshop, a new energy company's general manager excitedly raised his hand: "Teacher, this is very similar to the PDCA we use!"

"Great," I said. "Since you're using it, how's it working?"

He paused, his excitement fading: "So-so."

He explained: "We set goals every year. Not just annual goals — broken down to Q1, Q2, Q3... Then we each push forward. We also measure results. For two years, we didn't meet targets. So we reflected. We kept asking ourselves: 'Why didn't we meet the target?' The answer we came up with was — 'Maybe we set the growth target too high.'"

"In SMART, targets should be achievable. Since it was too high, we lowered it. But when we took action again and missed again, we lowered it further. After several rounds, our target wasn't much different from the original."

He added: "I'm not rejecting the model. I'm saying — we used it in a way that became self-deception. "

✧ A Perspective-Shifting Insight

He had mastered the first four steps of the model — but missed the most critical one.

PDCA is a good tool. But many users, in the "Act" step, habitually treat "adjusting the target" as part of improvement. Didn't meet the target? Lower it. In this way, "improvement" unconsciously becomes "changing the target."

Einstein said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

When you change the target from "impossible" to "possible," you get an easier task — not a stronger version of yourself.

Real improvement is finding a new path to achieve the target — without lowering the target itself.

✧ Data You Can't Ignore

This isn't an isolated case. McKinsey's research suggests that about half of all organizational performance change efforts fail — not because leadership failed to model behavior, but because employees remained unchanged.

In a survey of over 2,000 large-enterprise executives, McKinsey found that 70% of failures were due not to lack of resources or other barriers — but to management and employees solving new problems with old thinking.

Solving new problems with old thinking — that's the classic symptom of "changing the target" rather than "changing the equation."

✧ A Simple Yet Powerful Analogy

You have a thermostat at home. Set it to 22°C — it doesn't shout slogans, doesn't get anxious, doesn't quit halfway. It does one thing: continuously measure, continuously adjust, continuously move toward the target.

When the room temperature drops below 22°C, the thermostat doesn't say "22°C is too high — let's change it to 18°C." It doesn't change the target. It activates the heating system, adjusting variables in the equation: increase heating power, extend heating time, check insulation.

That's the essence of a "regulator": it doesn't question the target — it questions "how to achieve the target."

In organizations, the manager is that regulator. When results fall short, your job isn't to lower the bar — it's to diagnose which variable in the equation is broken, then adjust it.

Mediocre organizations change the target to feel better. Great organizations change the equation to truly improve.

✧ Three Questions to Reframe "Targets"

If you also don't want to fall into the "change the target" trap, ask yourself:

1. When results fall short, are you "changing the target" or "changing the method"? — The former makes you feel good; the latter makes you stronger.

2. Which variable in your equation is broken? — Is it the path, method, capability, resources, or process?

3. What's your smallest improvement step? — No need to change everything — start with one MVI (Minimum Viable Improvement).

✧ This Article Is Just an Introduction

What you just read is the tip of the iceberg — core concepts from Chapter 7 of Catalytic Leap: "Improvement: Making Every Progress Compound."

What you improve is the equation — not the target itself.

How do you use the "Improvement Priority Matrix" to prioritize multiple improvement items? How do you use "MVI (Minimum Viable Improvement)" to break improvements into 1-week actionable units? How do you use the "Improvement Compound Interest Ledger" to track cumulative time/cost savings? How do you use the "Improvement Consolidation Mechanism" to prevent improvement from slipping away?

These answers are in the book.

Catalytic Leap will take you through Diagnosis, Methods, Enablement, Internalization, and Practice — when you keep "changing the target" but never truly breaking through, this book will become your "equation adjustment guide."

If you also want to shift from "changing the target" to "changing the equation" —

① Get a free sample of Catalytic Leap (includes complete Diagnosis section + Change Agility Assessment)

② Visit www.jameschin.sg for the Improvement Priority Matrix Tool

③ Book a 30-minute free consultation for a direct conversation with the author

This article draws from Chapter 7 of Catalytic Leap. Want to know how to shift from "changing the target" to "changing the equation"? The full answers are in the book.